Scarlet... resounding thud?

[Josh Laronge]

I think the RED looks awesome and I may end up getting one for other projects. I will almost definitely be getting a 5DII first as I need it for stills.

However, the problem for wedding/event video with the RED, 5DII and D90 is the rolling shutter and flashes going off. This seems like a deal breaker to me.

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Josh Laronge

However, the problem for wedding/event video with the RED, 5DII and D90 is the rolling shutter and flashes going off. This seems like a deal breaker to me.

A lot of us have been dealing with that for a while with our CMOS based cameras. I don't find it that distracting to be honest, and I've certainly never heard a bride say anything about it. I don't think they even know it's there.

[Louis Maddalena]

The Scarlet wasn't aimed at the Event Videographer, the Scarlet was aimed at the indie film maker, as well as the corporate videographer. The companies that make commercials for corporations and the people who make online training videos. With the resolution of the Scarlet they will be able to reframe shots in post work on their product as if it was film, and still out put it to the web or to blu-ray just as easily as if it was shot on an HD camera.

That is the market the Scarlet was produced for... I am slowly building up my equipment list to get into that market, and soon will be purchasing the Scarlet, but even after I have it, I won't be using it for any weddings... at least not for entire weddings shoots, possibly the detail shots.

[Ger Griffin]

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

I've thought about the d90 as well since I already own Nikon glass, but I work handheld much of the time and really worry about how badly that camera skews.

How do you like it?

I like it. First and foremost the stills are top class. Burnout from overexposure no longer happens from a particular point (usually on the face somewhere) but uniformly accross the photo, more like film.

In terms of video I wouldn't go so far as to recommend it, but its definately a step in the right direction. I figured at the time I bought it that both the Nikon and the Canon DSLRs video modes will need to evolve a little before we can realistically consider them for main camera A footage.
So the Nikon being the cheaper option along with the fact that I already have some glass seemed to be the logical step.
I wouldnt use it handheld though. The skew is crazy bad. A monopod is ideal and forget about panning.

I'll be playing with some canon A1 presets to match the d90 stuff this winter. Im optimitic that it can be used next season. I just have to get my hands on a 50mm f1.4 first.

Apart from the technical quality issues, the aesthetic nature of the footage it captures is groundbreaking. To have all these people looking into the lens acting so naturally simply because they dont know its recording video is a real novelty at the moment :)
heres a small eg. http://www.vimeo.com/2281358

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Ger Griffin

I'll be playing with some canon A1 presets to match the d90 stuff this winter. Im optimitic that it can be used next season. I just have to get my hands on a 50mm f1.4 first.

Why do you need such a fast lens? Doesn't this camera have great low light ability as it is with however they're able to bump up the ISO without adding noise to the image?

How would you say it compares to whatever video cameras you're shooting in low light?

[Ger Griffin]

Its better than my A1 in low light and I've been led to believe that the less increase in iso the sharper the image remains.

I remember a referral to the term 'cartoon image' where it keeps the edges sharp but actually inside those edges soften on iso increase. So the extra couple of stops on a lens could effectively sharpen a video image far more than the optics would suggest by reducing the need to do this.

As it stands on a stills camera, the 50mm f1.4d is one of the sharpest primes in that price range. An even better bang for your buck is the 50mm f1.8d. Both are superior to the kit lens in terms of shrpness and seem to be the right choice for shooting video with this camera.

Not to mention the ridiculously shallow DOF at f1.4

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

Good thing with the 5D2 is that you can always stop down to increase DOF.. with it's good high ISO performance, you can even stop down when light isn't optimal.

That's a common misconception. The low light performance of the 5D Mark II is *only* because of its thin depth of field. If you take that away it actually performs *worse* than almost *any* small sensor camera from the last couple of years: even $300 digicams and 3CCD video cameras.

The reason for this is that low light capability for any given angle of view and perspective is entirely based on light gathering power, which is dependent on only three things:

• Aperture of the lens in millimeters (focal length divided by T/stop)
• Quantum efficiency of the sensor per square micron.
• Area of the sensor in square microns

The large sensor in the 5D allows you to use very large aperture lenses, such as 85mm f/1.2, which has an aperture of 70.8mm. Scarlet at the same angle of view with an f/1.8 lens would only an has an aperture of 11mm (~19mm f/1.8). In order to get the same DOF as the Scarlet, you'd have to stop the 85mm down to f/2.8, but then both cameras will receive the same total amount of light: Scarlet with more light intensity on a small area, and the 5D with less light intensity over a larger area. In that situation there is only one variable left:

Quantum efficiency per sq. micron. And here it is very likely that Scarlet and many other sensors will be higher than the 5Dm2. The 50D and many cheap digicams already are.

Most people here, including me, plan to use the thin DOF and low light performance at the same time, so none of this is an issue. But I think people should be aware that it will perform poorly unless you take advantage of wider apertures and shallower DOF.

[Ethan Cooper]

I've got to admit, I've been a Red fanboy, but it seems funny to me that people are buying in to their marketing speak of the DSMC system being "future proof". It's not. It can't be. Within 3 - 5 years all those bits and pieces will have to be swapped out for newer better ones. The LCD will need upgrading with one that consumes less power, the CF card slot will need to be ditched in favor or some newer, faster, larger storage, the "brain" will have to go in lieu of whatever the biggest baddest one you can afford at the time. You won't spend any less money with their gear, you'll just add and replace bits and pieces with greater frequency instead of entire cameras but in the end I'd be willing to bet it'll work out the same financially. The only difference is that you should have a technically superior camera for the same amount of money.

[Cole McDonald]

I'm sure it'll be great, I was looking forward to the 16mm(ish) chip, but 11mm (2/3") isn't so bad better than my current 7mm(ish) (1/3") XL1s (I shoot shorts and features more than events, so DOF options are important to me).

I'm impatient and don't want to say anything disparaging about it that'll leave me eating crow. The rest of the changes look really cool, but the smaller chip than expected leaves me able to look at the EX1's etc as alternatives that are out now (although the 120fps looks promising).

I deliver currently on DVD, so the higher resolution of 3k won't be as immediately useful to me as it will to some of you.

[Don Miller]

Daniel, we know the 35mm (36 x 24) tradeoffs with dof are perfectly workable from billions of images already made. You also didn't take in to account that diffraction limits of big lenses with big sensors are partially offset by larger pixels. Also, we use ND filters (whether built in or in the matt box) and don't use aperture to reduce light levels. Also, Red One apparently apparently has considerably less quantum efficency than similar APS sensors from Nikon and Canon. Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Daniel, we know the 35mm (36 x 24) tradeoffs with dof are perfectly workable from billions of images already made.

I agree that the tradeoffs are always in favor of 35mm when there is ample light. The larger format can always stop down to get the same amount of light (and DOF) as a smaller format, and can even get more light if the shutter speed in slowed or ND is removed. In other words, the larger format is more flexible.

However, I was discussing something else: low light; the factors are different there.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

You also didn't take in to account that diffraction limits of big lenses with big sensors are partially offset by larger pixels.

My post did not have anything to do with diffraction, nor did it need to. I would agree that big sensors are not limited by diffraction any more than small sensors, even when stopped down so much that they have the same DOF as a smaller sensor.

However, since you brought it up, I would point out that the reason this is true has nothing to do with larger sensors having "larger pixels". In fact, they could have pixels 10 times smaller than the "small sensor" pixels and it would still be true. The reason is because of the size of the sensor itself: the image is magnified (enlarged) less for display at the same resolution and viewing distance.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Also, we use ND filters (whether built in or in the matt box) and don't use aperture to reduce light levels.

I was not addressing well-lit situations where ND filtration is applicable. Rather, I was responding to a post about low light performance.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Also, Red One apparently apparently has considerably less quantum efficency than similar APS sensors from Nikon and Canon. Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

References?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Not that I necessarily agree about the importance of quantum efficiency.

Are we still talking video here? ;)

When I saw the first pictures of the scarlet it was clear to me that for weddings and events it would be no good, I mean, from what I saw on the pictures all controls were on the backside? OK in a controlled environment but for run and gun, forget it.

Also it required many extras to make it somewhat complete and we know what they cost. If your end product is dvd, blu-ray or webdelivery and your doing only events and weddings I'll take a hmc150 or xh-a1 over a red (with extra's) any day, I might even take both and still save some cash and deliver great looking video.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I think it's a bit strange, the complaining.

BEFORE the announcement Scarlet would be:
- a 2/3" camera
- Fixed Lens
- around 3K.

The lowest Scarlet model is STILL that. Maybe it will be a bit more with accessoires, but it will be in the same area.

But RED just gave a complete line-up, and people are drooling (understandably) over the bigger budget Scarlet-models, and some people are now saying they *need* 35mm sensor and that it isn't fair that RED isn't giving it anymore, while they are still keeping their promise (it seems) about the original Scarlet. It's just that there are now bigger models too, to choose from.

The competition is giving us 1/3" camera's with heavier compression, lower resolution then Scarlet and no variable framerates at this price point, and that are NOT upgradable. Still people are complaining...
(ow, and let's not forget the customer service at RED versus the big boys...)

Maybe the people that expected an S35 sensor with 1-200 fps variable framerates at a 3K pricepoint are dissapointed, but that's their own fault.

On the other hand, reasonable critics, that say that a Scarlet will maybe have bad ergonomics to shoot a wedding, now, that's something else. That's fair criticism (or not, we'll see).

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

Maybe the people that expected an S35 sensor with 1-200 fps variable framerates at a 3K pricepoint are dissapointed, but that's their own fault.

I've seen that kind of whining over on Scarletuser, but I don't think anyone in this discussion has complained in that manor.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

I've seen that kind of whining over on Scarletuser, but I don't think anyone in this discussion has complained in that manor.

Yes, maybe you're right. I was reacting on the original poster, who was saying that there was a very lukewarm reaction on the Scarlet announcement in general, so I wanted to react on that.
Also, some people here do say they rather go for the Canon 5D instead of the Scarlet, and I think some of them say that because of the 35mm sensor of the 5D. But I think they aren't really comparable, but I think my post above explains enough.

You're right, though, that here, most of the times, most people are pretty rational in their complaints.